Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)
Bihar School Examination Board vs Suresh Prasad Sinha on 4 September, 2009 cites

The State Of Orissa vs Sudhansu Sekhar Misra And Ors on 7 November, 1967

A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. (See: State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and Ors. (AIR 1968 SC 647) and Union of India and Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors. (1996 (6) SCC 44). A case is a precedent and binding for what it explicitly decides and no more. The words used by Judges in their judgments are not to be read as if they are words in an Act of Parliament.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 962 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Dhanwanti Devi & Ors on 21 August, 1996

A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. (See: State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and Ors. (AIR 1968 SC 647) and Union of India and Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors. (1996 (6) SCC 44). A case is a precedent and binding for what it explicitly decides and no more. The words used by Judges in their judgments are not to be read as if they are words in an Act of Parliament.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 373 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993

13. Let us examine whether the said decision has any relevance. To understand a decision correctly it is necessary to first know the facts of the case. The facts in Lucknow Development Authority were that even after the payment of the entire amount by the respondent for the flat which was allotted to him, possession was not given to him and the work of constructing the flat was still incomplete, although the time for handing over the possession had expired. In these circumstances, the National Consumer Commission ordered possession of the flat to be 9 handed over without delay after completing the construction work and it further directed payment of 12% simple interest on the deposit made by the respondent. The question that was considered was whether any act or omission by the Development Authority relating to housing activity such as delay in delivery of possession of the houses to the allottees, non- completion of the flat within the stipulated time or defective or faulty construction etc. will come within the purview of the Act. The submission before this Court in that case was that Statutory Development Authorities do not come within the purview of the Act. While negativing the said contention, this Court observed that activities which are not otherwise commercial, but professional or service oriented in nature will come within the purview of the definition of `service' in Section 2(o) of the Act. But the said observation is of no relevance. The Board is not carrying on any commercial, professional or service-oriented activity. No `benefit' is conferred nor any `facility' provided by the Board for any consideration. Therefore, the said decision is inapplicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 1040 - R M Sahai - Full Document
1   2 Next